3 ms·

Did you ever think there's a reason why people are paying for professional tools like Cursor or Claude Code instead of using free ChatGPT? Ye, the free version

Did you ever think there's a reason why people are paying for professional tools like Cursor or Claude Code instead of using free ChatGPT? Ye, the free version has some known issues. They cram a lot of stuff into GPT-4o, so it hallucinates a lot. Claude Opus 4 often gives perfectly working code on the first try, and it's much less likely to hallucinate or argue with you when it's wrong. It costs around $1 per request though. Not cheap. It's a model with many trillions of weights and running it isn't cheap.

tempfile 1y ago
They are replying to someone who said ChatGPT. Why are you barging in to change the goalposts?
yard2010 1y ago
I doubt that it is a matter of parameters count.
degamad 1y ago
> Did you ever think there's a reason why people are paying for professional tools like Cursor or Claude Code instead of using free ChatGPT? Because free ChatGPT wasn't useful to them, and someone convinced them that LLMs become useful if you give money to Cursor and Claude?
- danielbln 1y ago
  That free swag hammer broke immediately. I therefore conclude that all hammers suck and that I shouldn't spend money to buy a better hammer.
  - namcheapisdumb 1y ago
    you really expect hammers to spontaneously break?
bradly 1y ago
Sorry, I used a poorly worded phrase in my comment. When I wrote "for free" I meant without me having to think (vibing), not in reference to model subscriptions. I have a paid ChatGPT subscription.
windexh8er 1y ago
> Claude Opus 4 often gives perfectly working code on the first try, and it's much less likely to hallucinate or argue with you when it's wrong. It costs around $1 per request though. Not cheap. It's a model with many trillions of weights and running it isn't cheap. Claude Opus 4 isn't the silver bullet as described here. I have used it quite often in the last few weeks to help me both write code and to debug system problems. I would say it's not worth the price and that Sonnet is, generally, just as good. In fact I still just use 3.7 as it was stated that both 4.0 releases were less sychophantic, however I don't feel that is the case. I also never have an AI "argue" with me, in fact I can tell it that it's completely wrong, when it's not, and it will agree with me almost always along with an zealous apology.

tempfile 1y ago

They are replying to someone who said ChatGPT. Why are you barging in to change the goalposts?

yard2010 1y ago

I doubt that it is a matter of parameters count.

degamad 1y ago

> Did you ever think there's a reason why people are paying for professional tools like Cursor or Claude Code instead of using free ChatGPT? Because free ChatGPT wasn't useful to them, and someone convinced them that LLMs become useful if you give money to Cursor and Claude?

danielbln 1y ago
That free swag hammer broke immediately. I therefore conclude that all hammers suck and that I shouldn't spend money to buy a better hammer.
- namcheapisdumb 1y ago
  you really expect hammers to spontaneously break?

bradly 1y ago

Sorry, I used a poorly worded phrase in my comment. When I wrote "for free" I meant without me having to think (vibing), not in reference to model subscriptions. I have a paid ChatGPT subscription.

windexh8er 1y ago

> Claude Opus 4 often gives perfectly working code on the first try, and it's much less likely to hallucinate or argue with you when it's wrong. It costs around $1 per request though. Not cheap. It's a model with many trillions of weights and running it isn't cheap. Claude Opus 4 isn't the silver bullet as described here. I have used it quite often in the last few weeks to help me both write code and to debug system problems. I would say it's not worth the price and that Sonnet is, generally, just as good. In fact I still just use 3.7 as it was stated that both 4.0 releases were less sychophantic, however I don't feel that is the case. I also never have an AI "argue" with me, in fact I can tell it that it's completely wrong, when it's not, and it will agree with me almost always along with an zealous apology.